How to jQuery select with only a checkbox in it

Question

The Goal

I want to select <td> elements that contain only a checkbox. I want to do this with a single selector (not using chaining or logic outside the selector) so that I can use the selector with jQuery functions like live or delegate.

The bigger pictures is that I want to listen for a click event on these <td>s and pass the click event on to the checkbox, thus creating a larger clicking area. This is important, because the <tr> also has a different click event that I don't want to activate when users click and miss the checkbox.

The specifics

I created a jsfiddle with an example scenario: http://jsfiddle.net/ytA3X/

This is what I started with that is not working. In other words, select any td element that has a checkbox but does not have anything that is not a checkbox.

$('td:has(:checkbox):not(:has(:not(:checkbox)))')
=> []

:not(:has(...)) works in my jsfiddle example.

:has(:not(...)) works in my jsfiddle example.

:not(:has(:not(...))) always seems to select nothing.

Is there a different way that I can select td elements with only a checkbox, or am I doing something wrong?

So what is your question, you want to select `td` that has only one checkbox element and no other element? — Selvakumar Arumugam, May 29 '12 at 18:04
Any specific reason you aren't using to increase the clicking area? Also why are you using a table? Is the data you're presenting tabular? — Madara's Ghost, May 29 '12 at 18:08
Yes, it's a data table. That's really irrelevant to the question though - you don't need to be the the table police. Even if I were using other elements, I would still have the same problem. What were you saying about increasing the clicking area though? Looks like you left out a word that might have made that comment useful ;-) — Edward Anderson, May 30 '12 at 00:59

score 8 · Accepted Answer · answered May 29 '12 at 18:12

8

How about using :only-child:

$('td:has(:checkbox:only-child)')...

JSFiddle

answered May 29 '12 at 18:12

Evan Mulawski

53,455
14
114
144

+1 Nice, I didn't know jQuert supports this css3 selector. But I wouldn't use if from readability reasons. – gdoron is supporting Monica May 29 '12 at 18:16
1

@gdoron: Readability? It says: "select all `td` elements that `have` a `checkbox` as their `only-child`". You can easily read it as a sentence. – Evan Mulawski May 29 '12 at 18:18
Maybe. I just don't like too many `:` in my selectors. But I loved your answer! – gdoron is supporting Monica May 29 '12 at 18:20
Thanks! That's exactly the sort of simpler answer I was looking for. – Edward Anderson May 29 '12 at 19:32

gdoron is supporting Monica · Answer 2 · 2012-05-29T18:16:01.120

2

Don't do it with one selector, it will make your code hard to read and extremely hard to maintain and debug.

$('td:has(input[type="checkbox"])').filter(function(){
    return $(this).children().length === 1
});

Live DEMO

edited May 29 '12 at 18:16

answered May 29 '12 at 18:02

gdoron is supporting Monica

142,542
55
282
355

But then I can't use delegate or live to watch for the click event with a dynamic form. – Edward Anderson May 29 '12 at 18:03
3

@nilbus: What do you mean? You can still chain `.live` after the call to `.filter`. – mellamokb May 29 '12 at 18:05
@nilbus add a class to all matching elements that in the delegation. – Madara's Ghost May 29 '12 at 18:10
Do you really need to do a `===` check for length property? – Selvakumar Arumugam May 29 '12 at 18:11
@Vega. You don't **need** to, but `===` is faster than `==`, and always using only this comparison operator can saves you from trouble. – gdoron is supporting Monica May 29 '12 at 18:13
@gdoron Is it true that `===` is faster than `==`? >> http://jsperf.com/equals-operator <<. agree="" better="" but="" case..="" i="" in="" is="" not="" specific="" that="" this="" using=""> – Selvakumar Arumugam May 29 '12 at 18:19
@gdoron I understand completely and I agree that using `===` is better.. but What I was trying to say is `===` is not faster if the types are the same and it is not THE BEST in this specific case as you had mentioned.. Well to be honest, it is not even a matter of concern to have it discussed so much >.< .. Just trying to explain what I meant. – Selvakumar Arumugam May 29 '12 at 18:30
@Vega. You're right, in this case, it just a good habit... :) End. – gdoron is supporting Monica May 29 '12 at 18:32
From the jQuery docs: "Chaining methods is not supported. For example, $("a").find(".offsite, .external").live( ... ); is not valid and does not work as expected." Unless filter is special, I'm pretty sure that doesn't work. – Edward Anderson May 29 '12 at 19:30
@nilbus. What jQuery version are you using? why do you still using the deprecated `live` function? – gdoron is supporting Monica May 29 '12 at 20:38
@ the app is using 1.4.4 where .on isn't available yet. I hesitate to upgrade until I have time to test thoroughly. – Edward Anderson May 30 '12 at 00:49

score 2 · Answer 3 · answered May 29 '12 at 18:13

2

You can use the only-child selector:

$('td:has(:checkbox:only-child)')

Here it is in use with your markup.

answered May 29 '12 at 18:13

FishBasketGordo

22,468
4
58
91

+1 You were 44 seconds slower, but you still deserve some points for thinking about `:only-child`. – Evan Mulawski May 29 '12 at 18:21
Thanks! That's exactly the sort of simpler answer I was looking for. – Edward Anderson May 29 '12 at 19:32

score 1 · Answer 4 · answered May 29 '12 at 18:06

1

You can simply use .not instead and split it into two separate selectors:

http://jsfiddle.net/ytA3X/1/

answered May 29 '12 at 18:06

Explosion Pills

183,406
48
308
385

This will work with two checkboxes as well, Not sure this is the output he wants. – gdoron is supporting Monica May 29 '12 at 18:11

How to jQuery select with only a checkbox in it

The Goal

The specifics

4 Answers4